jnmpoppie | 31 Oct 2015 9:42 a.m. PST |
Does anyone know how how Dragon missiles where deployed and distributed within U.S. mechanized infantry and cavalry platoons in West Germany in the 1980s. Was there one dedicated team in each squad or where they attached to the platoon headquarters? Did each APC have a tracker with reloads? Was there a difference between M113 and M2/3 Bradley units? Were Dragons automatically deployed when the squad dismounted? Any input would be appreciated. |
Battle Phlox | 31 Oct 2015 9:51 a.m. PST |
Typically one Dragon gunner per squad. He would act as a normal rifleman until he needed to use the dragon. I don't know about reloads. |
Who asked this joker | 31 Oct 2015 10:02 a.m. PST |
Typically one Dragon gunner per squad. He would act as a normal rifleman until he needed to use the dragon. That seems to be high. I thought it was one per platoon. |
11th ACR | 31 Oct 2015 10:33 a.m. PST |
In a Scout Platoon of 3 M113's and 3 M901's there was one M47 Dragon per each M113. And I'm thinking we carried 6 rounds per vehicle. One in the mount next to the Vehicle Commander, and the rest strapped to the right side wall inside the vehicle. |
Mako11 | 31 Oct 2015 10:49 a.m. PST |
"That seems to be high". Nope, not when facing those hordes of Soviet and Warsaw Pact armor in Europe. One per squad. |
Tgunner | 31 Oct 2015 11:01 a.m. PST |
Yup, it's one per squad. It's in the TM. Each squad also had a M60 machine gun too. It would be up to the squad and platoon leaders about when and how to deploy these weapons. |
11th ACR | 31 Oct 2015 11:07 a.m. PST |
PS I pretty sure the line dogs in the Inf carried a few less then us scouts. They had a few more troops on there M113's then us. So add all there bags and other ammo. We just had 5 man crews by the book but normal crew of 4. Our vehicles were solid load of ammo and demo. When we were fully loaded up, the driver and vehicle commander were the only ones in the vehicle, do to all the ammo and demo inside. The other 3 or 2 crewmen sat on top with there rucksacks and duffel bags strapped to the sides. Just like our M901's had 12 TOW missiles each. Two in the hammer head and 10 in the rack. Our 3 M901's also each carried a chain saw to top trees so they could shoot out of keyholes along wooded hilltops. Its been so long it hard to remember the totals for how much of each type of ammo and demo charges. |
trance | 31 Oct 2015 11:15 a.m. PST |
US ACR Platoon Command track either M113 Cavalry Scout version with M175 Dragon misile vehicle mount or a MBT (M551 or M60A3) this would be the zero IE Bravo 20 21,22,23,would Be MBT in platoons that used the M113 CSV as a command track 24 would be a MBT the 25,26 tracks would be M113 CSVs. 27,28 would be M901 ITVs the 29 track could be either a M106 Mortar track or M113 Apc with Infantry Squad or even a third M901 ITV. The standard US infantry Platoon had a weapons Squad with 3 M47 Dragon and 2 M60 SF MGs so of the 6 fire teams in a rifle platoon 3 could have a dragon and a M60 2 could have a M60 and one might have only its personal weapons.. |
Lion in the Stars | 31 Oct 2015 12:17 p.m. PST |
The standard US infantry Platoon had a weapons Squad with 3 M47 Dragon and 2 M60 SF MGs so of the 6 fire teams in a rifle platoon 3 could have a dragon and a M60 2 could have a M60 and one might have only its personal weapons. Wonder how long it would take for a platoon to acquire a third M60? 5 minutes in the CONEX box to find all the parts? |
11th ACR | 31 Oct 2015 12:34 p.m. PST |
One more. In the Scout Platoon of 3 M113's and 3 M901's. You would have 6 M60 MG. one per veh. |
Dynaman8789 | 31 Oct 2015 1:16 p.m. PST |
Looking at the stats for the Dragon's minimum arming range, maximum range, and speed I'm thinking that it would have been a SEVERELY limited use weapon anyway. In a prepared position where the firing ranges could be setup just so it might be useful – if the Soviets didn't smoke the heck out of it first. |
Cold Steel | 31 Oct 2015 1:51 p.m. PST |
Minimum range 75 meters, maximum 1500 meters. That adds up to a pretty good engagement range. The Dragon was a good 2d generation medium range weapon. The biggest drawback to the Dragon was the slow speed and high visibility of the missile in flight from all the small guidance rocket motors popping off. Yes, the Soviets could spot the launch and shell the position if they wanted to take the time to do it, but that is why every heavy weapon and AFV had alternate and fall back positions: fire, then move before the counter-fire gets there. |
Mako11 | 31 Oct 2015 4:54 p.m. PST |
Well, 1,500m is certainly better than the 1,000m I've read about on some sites (apparently the lower number is the "effective range"). Always thought that to be a little too close for comfort, unless you could surprise the enemy and get a flank shot. Firing at that range frontally on a company, or battalion of rapidly closing enemy armor would be rather exciting, I imagine. |
Cold Steel | 31 Oct 2015 6:51 p.m. PST |
Doctrine is to fire from flanking positions whenever possible. Keep in mind most engagement ranges in Germany were under 1500 m, so a Dragon could cover most target areas. A Soviet attack would not have been a few vehicles at a time moving cautiously like in most wargames. Time to spot and destroy individual targets is a luxury the average Soviet commander would not have. Their attacks would be en mass, fast moving and met by lots of different weapons firing from all directions. |
11th ACR | 01 Nov 2015 5:43 a.m. PST |
Early 1980's 1980-82 when I was a Dragon Gunner, Min Arming Range was 50 Meters. Max Range was 1,000 Meters. Flying time at 1,000 Meters was 10 seconds. |
Mako11 | 01 Nov 2015 11:21 a.m. PST |
I was a bit surprised to see the 1,500m reference, since I always thought the max. range was 1,000m. |
11th ACR | 01 Nov 2015 1:15 p.m. PST |
It was 1,000 Meters when I was gunning. That 1,500 Meters may be for a later improved version. ? Just like all we had at that time was a Day Sight on the tracker. I know the had a Night Sight later. A few web pages on the M47 Dragon. link link link link link link link |
Cold Steel | 01 Nov 2015 5:19 p.m. PST |
The so called "Super Dragon" upgrade had a range of 1500 m. Lat 1980s, IIRC. |
Mako11 | 01 Nov 2015 5:45 p.m. PST |
Ah, I see. Thanks for the additional info. |
Charlie 12 | 01 Nov 2015 9:53 p.m. PST |
It also had a bumped up penetration. |
lincolnlog | 02 Nov 2015 9:58 a.m. PST |
A mech platoon carried 4 M47 Dragons, on per squad, and 1 on the Platoon command track. Our M113s had a liquid hydraulic mount for the TC hatch with a blast shield. The mount damped the gunners motion which theoretically was supposed to cause fewer misses. Minimum range for the original Dragon was 65 meters. U.S. Light infantry platoons had one Dragon per platoon. |
Legion 4 | 03 Nov 2015 3:28 p.m. PST |
There was one Dragon per Squad when I commanded a Mech Company, '87-'89. And the same when I lead a Rifle Plt, in the 101, '80-'81. Infantrymen really needed some organic AT firepower to take on the threat of a Warsaw Pact armored flood. However, I really never was a big fan of the Dragon, but you train and use what you got … Were Dragons automatically deployed when the squad dismounted? It really depended on the situation, but if your squad was going to be dismounted for more that a few minutes or so. You took your Dragon. And of course in the defense, it was SOP to dismount and fortify the Dragon position. We pretty much did the same for the M2 .50 cal. Of course in the 101, once on the ground you took all your toys with you. If you left a Dragon on a chopper it won't do you any good when you really need it ! In both Light and Mech M72 LAWs could be liberally issued as well … if needed. |
11th ACR | 03 Nov 2015 3:43 p.m. PST |
I hated the Dragon. It was heavy. It did not have long range (1,000 meters) No Night sight at this time when I was a gunner. (we did field mod in Germany by strapping a TOW night sight on the day tracker. It worked ok but not perfect. It was noisy. When fired the gunners eye (me) wanted to look at the nice flashing gyro rockets firing, witch would cause it to crash if you did. You fired and sat there for (10 seconds), and waited for all hell to come down on you. |
Legion 4 | 03 Nov 2015 4:07 p.m. PST |
Yes, it was a pain to lug into and out of a chopper or APC. Or on a dismounted patrol. And we had the night sight, but it too was just more to lug around. Plus the Dragon missile was a one shot weapon. You always had to have extras if you wanted more than one shot. So if dismounted you had to have some of the squad lug extra rounds. Everyone who was not carrying an MG, SAW, or GL would have to carry the extra rounds. There was only 11 men in the squad. Each Squad had 1 M60 MG, 2 M203 GL and 2 M249 SAWs … you ran out of troops to carry stuff ! And the M60 required an A-gunner to haul and feed ammo. The SL was probably not going to haul a Dragon round unless it was absolutely necessary. In the 101 at that time we didn't even have SAWs. We had a troop with an M16 as the designated AR Man. By placing a "close pin" type bi-pod on his M16 … And don't forget you may have to carry M18 Claymores and probably hand grenades. So much for being Light Infantry … |
lincolnlog | 04 Nov 2015 5:02 a.m. PST |
The HEAT warhead on the Dragon was also a little light to ensure front armor penetration on the T72 or later. But I agree with above, with a 8-10 second flight time on a long range shot, plus a very telling back blast that announced your position, the weapon worked best in flank ambush. We trained with the M72A2 LAW performing hunter/killer anti-armor patrols, firing 6-7 laws at each vehicle from the flank and rear. We used to fire LAW sub cal at moving M60A1 tanks at Graf. I've heard stories of also shooting them at M113's with plywood mounted on the side of the vehicle. The Therma1 and IR night tracker for Dragoon was after my time. I was in the Guard by then, and we were still using M113A2's and M48A5s in 1990. My Guard unit was just transitioning to Bradleys when I got out. |
Legion 4 | 04 Nov 2015 3:20 p.m. PST |
The Mech Co. I commanded '87-'89, was an active duty unit and part of the 18th ABN XXX. And they did not transition to M2s until they deployed for GWI. But by that time I was a civilian. The M72 LAW was like the M47 Dragon. Better than nothing to deal with Armor. Another reason why Mech Cos. at that time had 2 M901 ITVs organic to the TO&E. As well as there was an entire AT Co. in each Mech Bn. Plus as 11th ACR noted, 3 M901s with the Bn SCT Plt. The TOW was far superior to the M47 and M72 for a number of reasons. But in dismounted Infantry ops, like patrolling. Generally the M72 and/or M47 is really your only choices. Maybe some satchel charges too. And for a dismounted AT Ambush of course the situation would be similar. The M72, M47 and maybe some AT mines … Now in closed or mixed terrain, like urban or heavily forested, etc. … Infantrymen with M72s, satchel charges maybe some improvised explosives like Molotov Cocktails, etc. … And some M47s for the longer shots could do some real damage. But it is very up close and very personal. And something we learned the hard way, in training. An MBT can close that 1000m max range of a Dragon very quickly. And of course, generally, based on the terrain are faster than Infantrymen. |
Visceral Impact Studios | 05 Nov 2015 5:46 a.m. PST |
Satchel charge vs MBT: would it really be that effective, even on the engine deck? Or are we talking strictly an attempt at a mobility kill? |
lincolnlog | 05 Nov 2015 6:46 a.m. PST |
"The Mech Co. I commanded '87-'89, was an active duty unit and part of the 18th ABN XXX. And they did not transition to M2s until they deployed for GWI. But by that time I was a civilian." 24th ID? I seem to remember that was one of the RDF units, along with the 82d and 101st. When I was light I was in the 7th Division when it was still at Ft. Ord. We were capstone Korea/Pac-Rim. Our TO&E was one Dragon per platoon. Since 101st was RDF, perhaps that's why a heavier mix of Dragoons, greater need for anti-armor flexibility. I would image 82nd was similar. But would suspect 9th Div, and 25th Div was the same as us (keep in mind I'm referencing early 80's pre-Panama so it's possible the TO&E changed after I moved on. |
Legion 4 | 07 Nov 2015 9:53 a.m. PST |
197th Mech Bde at Benning … It was reflagged after GWI, I forget to what ? Yes, I can see the 7th being Light and deploying to ROK/Pac-Rim having less Dragons than the 101 and 82d. The Norks had fewer AFVs than on any other front. And the PRC was still very much an Infantry heavy army. You are probably correct about the 9th & 25th. That sounds correct now that I think about it. I was with the 197th during the Panama invasion. We were slated to send a Mech Bn. But they took one from Polk. They were closer, I guess. And having been to Polk on an FTX when I was with the 101. Plus 3 deployments to Panama in the early '80s. Polk was a bit more like Panama than Benning. And during Vietnam they ran jungle training at Polk, call "Tiger Land", IIRC. |
Legion 4 | 07 Nov 2015 10:06 a.m. PST |
Satchel charge vs MBT: would it really be that an attempt at a mobility kill?effective, even on the engine deck? Or are we talking strictly
Were trained with the satchel charge very briefly. And based on the AFV, engine deck or tracks could work. Also we were instructed about improvised munitions, like the old school "Molotov Cocktail". Which was to be thrown on the rear deck. We also were put in a concrete reinforced fox hole. Run over by an M60 MBT. Then trained to pop-up out of the hole and fire an inert LAW. Into the MBT's rear hull. Again, I think all this type training was in prep for an NATO-Warsaw Pact War in Europe. It didn't take long to realize we were going to have to go toe-to-toe with massive amounts of mostly Russian made AFVs. Of all shapes and sizes. If the balloon went up ! We set up AT ambushes with the M47. Set up on top of what we thought was terrain the M60s would have a hard time climbing up, etc., etc. … We were thoroughly trained in the art and science of Tank Killing. |
lincolnlog | 09 Nov 2015 4:51 a.m. PST |
IIRC, the 197th Bde was at Benning (at least it was in 79). |
Legion 4 | 09 Nov 2015 9:56 a.m. PST |
Yep, I was assigned to the 197th '86-'90. After returning from the ROK with a Mech Bn there for 22 months. Then to CAS3 and finally back to Benning. Where I was Rif'd in early '90 … I remember the 197th being at Benning in '79 too, when I went thru IOBC. |
CavScout8thCav | 10 Nov 2015 4:57 a.m. PST |
The Dragon was crap… We managed to secure 4 war shots ie live rounds. When you were in the seated firing position you had this heavy weight on your shoulder so your body resisted by pressing upwards. Soon as you pulled the trigger the weight was gone and you were pushing up on the launcher tube. Out of the 4 live shots 3 were dumped into the dirt the 4th actually managed to find the target, our SOP changed after that. We would fire them only from the mount on our 113's |
Legion 4 | 10 Nov 2015 8:31 a.m. PST |
Yes, there was a mounting point for the Dragon on the M113. But we usually trained to fire it dismounted and dug in. But We too figured we'd have a better stable firing platform mounted on the M113. Was so glad to hear they got rid of the thing. But I was a civilian by then. Between the fragile M113 and "minimally" effective Dragon. I estimated as a Cdr, that we'd be fighting dismounted at very close range in close terrain to survive against AFVs. We only had 2 M901 ITVs which would could take out the AFVs at longer ranges, but again only had 2 TOWs organically in my Mech Co. Which is pretty much the way we planned when I was a Rifle PL in the 101 as a 2LT. An AT ambush in the thick woods or in an urban environment. We believed we have to pack a bunch of LAWs and hope to blow off a track ! At close range … As either a PL or Co. Cdr, we'd hope more TOWs were near by or friendly armor. Plus I'd be on the radio calling everything I could get from FA, CAS, gunships etc. … It was just the way it was to be done in those days … |
lincolnlog | 10 Nov 2015 8:42 a.m. PST |
Statistically, you were most likely to dump your first shot. The on the second more likely to hit after you knew what to expect. The rounds were so expensive, they could never supply enough to allow every Dragon gunner to fire a live shot. We never got live Dragon at Level II gunnery and only got 2 per platoon at Level I gunnery. The old simulator didn't simulate the back blast, noise, weight variance, or the distracting IR flare on the tail of the rocket. |
Legion 4 | 10 Nov 2015 8:48 a.m. PST |
Yes, we only ever got to fire one or two training/practice rounds per year, IIRC ? The rest of the time we'd have to use the simulator. Which was better than nothing. And some of my troopers got to be pretty good with the simulator. But as you noted, it really was not an accurate "simulation" … |